[cabfpub] Adjusting the voting process

[Virginia Fournier]

Hi Tim,

I wasn’t suggesting that we try to define “minor changes” or “major changes."  I was conjecturing that, if we were able to work through any major snags during a pre-ballot (informal) discussion period, we would hopefully only have minor issues (rather than complete overhauls) that would be easy to deal with during the formal discussion period.

I agree that if people think a ballot has changed too much during the discussion period and/or they don’t like it for any reason, they should vote no.  If the ballot doesn’t pass, the proposer will need to take a pulse and determine how to proceed. 

Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ vmf at apple.com






On Sep 27, 2017, at 12:47 PM, Tim Hollebeek <THollebeek at trustwave.com> wrote:

I don't think it is going to be possible to rigorously define "minor changes".

If people think a ballot has changed too much during the discussion period and the discussion period should be restarted, they are welcome to vote against it on those grounds.

-Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Public [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Virginia Fournier via Public
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 2:47 PM
To: public at cabforum.org
Subject: [cabfpub] Adjusting the voting process

Hello Gerv and all,

When we revamped the voting process, we knew there would be changes over time to smooth it out and make it more efficient.  So we should be open to changes that would improve the process.

In response to Gerv’s suggestions, I’m not sure what the "21-day period" is.  Also, why would the ballot die rather than moving to the voting period?

There’s nothing in the process that says the ballot cannot be amended during the discussion period, but I think it’s worth clarifying this.  Also, the ballot should not have to start completely over if it is amended - this would not render the process faster or more efficient.  At the end of the formal discussion period, the ballot would go to the voting period and, if members don’t like it, they should vote no and the ballot will not pass.  This is the advantage of having a pre-ballot discussion period to untangle any major issues before you get to the formal discussion period.  That way, there should only be minor changes during the formal discussion period.

What is a gentleman’s arrangement?

thanks,

Virginia
------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:54:13 +0100
From: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>
To: Kirk Hall <Kirk.Hall at entrustdatacard.com>, CA/Browser Forum Public
	Discussion List <public at cabforum.org>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Fixing our voting process, again
Message-ID: <6d8b3b3d-db1a-028b-9baf-897243e257d6 at mozilla.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

On 25/09/17 16:48, Kirk Hall wrote:
> Yes, good idea.  If no movement to voting after 21 days, the ballot dies?

Yes. It would require tweaks in a few places, including to our template (because the entire timeline would not be knowable at the beginning) but I still think it's an improvement.

> Also, we make clear that the ballot can be amended during the 
> discussion period (and must be reposted with amendments for clarity)?
> That's not explicit today.

Yes, we could do that too. Do we want to restart the "min 7 days" each time this happens, or do we want to continue with the gentleman's arrangement of not sliding massive changes in just under the wire?

Gerv	



_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=4062&d=yfLL2V0MebDxZ2Nh8pHBp9xiY11Z7nXSqWgcFcUazw&s=5&u=https%3a%2f%2fcabforum%2eorg%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fpublic